Gawain 0 #26 March 20, 2007 QuoteAnd what again did the glorious republican controlled congress achieve while enjoying almost absolute power for quite some time? I'm on record about that, these past couple years in particular. The only thing they've managed to do is spend money. However, we all remember the enlightened tone that was adopted after these past elections. It's pretty clear that went to sh*t and Speaker Pelosi has no control over it. Senator Schumer has really lit a fire over it, and I'm still scratching my head as to why. Quote(it is unusual for this many to get terminated in the middle of the second term of a presidency. We aren't talking about 1 getting canned.) The number being canned, maybe. The fact that it happened after an election isn't. This was a news item in January, and people have been forcing a "fanning of the flames" because there is nothing here. Right or wrong, the perogative is solely that of the President. He could have dismissed them for not liking their hair.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #27 March 21, 2007 Quote Right or wrong, the perogative is solely that of the President. Absolutely wrong. They are supposed to be confirmed by the senate. These US attorneys are being replaced and not being subject to senate confirmation by using a provision in the Patriot Act. That is the problem completely. If they really deserved to be fired, they could have just done so for cause and gone through the process of confirming a replacement. They chose not to do so. Why? Because they were not firing for cause, but for politics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #28 March 21, 2007 QuoteQuote Right or wrong, the perogative is solely that of the President. Absolutely wrong. They are supposed to be confirmed by the senate. These US attorneys are being replaced and not being subject to senate confirmation by using a provision in the Patriot Act. That is the problem completely. If they really deserved to be fired, they could have just done so for cause and gone through the process of confirming a replacement. They chose not to do so. Why? Because they were not firing for cause, but for politics. You are mixing two issues at hand. The Patriot Act allowed the AG to place prosecutors without Senate oversight. For the prosecutors that are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, it is the President alone that can dismiss them outright. Congressional action would require an impeachment. What all the hub-bub is about, and the way it's being played in the press, is that 8 prosecutors were fired, not how they were replaced. The Senate has taken care of that today. Senate oversight is now required. The deed is done, the rest is fluff.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #29 March 21, 2007 Quote And what again did the glorious republican controlled congress achieve while enjoying almost absolute power for quite some time? About 25,000 earmarks, took a hard line against France through a non-binding resolution about a street name, and Dr. Frist youtubed a medical misdiagnosis or two. Oh, and they used up all the ink for their Congressional rubber stamp. All that and they only showed up three days a week. What efficiency! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #30 March 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Right or wrong, the perogative is solely that of the President. Absolutely wrong. They are supposed to be confirmed by the senate. These US attorneys are being replaced and not being subject to senate confirmation by using a provision in the Patriot Act. That is the problem completely. If they really deserved to be fired, they could have just done so for cause and gone through the process of confirming a replacement. They chose not to do so. Why? Because they were not firing for cause, but for politics. You are mixing two issues at hand. The Patriot Act allowed the AG to place prosecutors without Senate oversight. For the prosecutors that are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, it is the President alone that can dismiss them outright. Congressional action would require an impeachment. What all the hub-bub is about, and the way it's being played in the press, is that 8 prosecutors were fired, not how they were replaced. The Senate has taken care of that today. Senate oversight is now required. The deed is done, the rest is fluff. "not being subject to senate confirmation by using a provision in the Patriot Act" that was slipped in, in conference, at the last second, by the Republicans who were in control of Congress at the time. A complete and utter misuse of power. I am happy to see that you are coming around to realizing that Congressional oversight is long overdue. 47 top Clinton Administration officials were subpoenaed to testify under oath in front of the Republican controlled Congress. The equivalent of Rove (I forget the name) was subpoenaed more than once, IIRC. ShrubCo doesn't have a leg to stand on as far as trying to prevent the subpoenas that will be out today or tomorrow. If Rove, et al, were planning to be truthful and honest, why are they trying their hardest to avoid testifying publicly under oath? Is it possible that they have something to hide? After all, this administration is reknowned for their honesty and candor... NOT. Did you ever figure out who Lamm is and what she accomplished? Does the connection between her accomplishments and her termination become obvious, upon further review? Her termination severely crippled the ongoing investigation. 7-1 Democratic to Republican investigations by the "unbiased" US Attorneys. Do you believe that this glaring disparity was an accident? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #31 March 21, 2007 Quote I am happy to see that you are coming around to realizing that Congressional oversight is long overdue. 47 top Clinton Administration officials were subpoenaed to testify under oath in front of the Republican controlled Congress. I seem to recall that the Republican lead congress issued over 1000 subpoenas to the Clinton administration.....as opposed to what......zero for the Bush administration? I'd compare that to night and day but night and day average out for the most part over the course of a year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #32 March 21, 2007 Quote If Rove, et al, were planning to be truthful and honest, why are they trying their hardest to avoid testifying publicly under oath? What's that saying we hear so often from GOP supporters? Something along the lines of "It shoudn't bother you if you have nothing to hide." I think the fact that Bush is fighting on the issues of oath and transcript is more telling than anything else on this subject. He's expressed concern that if Rove has to testify under oath, he'll no longer be able to give him "candid advice." The man truly has no concept of the balance of powers. Oh...and if this somehow gets fast-tracked to resolve before the end of this term, I've got Miers throwing herself on the grenade. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #33 March 21, 2007 QuoteLibs, its like talking to a wall. Absolutely brilliant! I've said it before, so I guess I have to say it again: Mindlessly and childishly barfing out the word "Libs" is no substitute for intelligent thought and analysis. A caveman can do it.® Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
